APHC010138592025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 7158/2025 Between: Killadi Govindu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAMANA ALLU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 2 The Court made the following order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- “…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularity one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, declaring the Impugned Termination order Dt.17.01.2025 (received on 21.01.2025), vide RC.No.DVC/41/AVO/16th round /MGNREGS/2024 passed by the 3rd Respondent against the petitioner as illegal, unjust and violation of the article 14, 21 and 311 of the constitution of India and set aside the same by directing the Respondent No.2 to follow the SRDS Rules, 2012 in order to reinstate the petitioner in the post of Field Assistant-FTE in Gondhi Kothapalli village in the interest of justice and to pass such other order(s) as this Hon’ble High Court may be pleased and to pass such other order or orders.…” 2. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the final termination order vide Rc.No.DVC/41/AVO/16th round/MGNREGS/2024 dated 17.01.2025, passed by the 3rd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Heard Sri Ramana Allu, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for 1st respondent; Sri M.S.R.Chandramurthy, learned Standing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Sri Srinivasulu Reddy, learned Standing counsel for 5th respondent. 4. The petitioner, while working as Field Assistant, was placed under suspension on 18.10.2024 and was called upon to show cause regarding the allegations. After the submission of explanation, a final order was passed terminating the petitioner from services by impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.DVC/41/AVO/16th round/MGNREGS/2024 dated 17.01.2025. 3 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned termination order is not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under SRDS Rules, 2012. 6. Sri M.S.R.Chandramurthy, learned Standing for respondent Nos.2 to 4, on instructions, submits that petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent in terms of Clause-13(C) of Field Assistant Human Resource Policy, 2013, and the same is pending consideration. 7. In view of the aforesaid submissions, this Court is not inclined to entertain the challenge to the impugned order, as the petitioner has already availed of the alternative remedy. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of six (06) weeks in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 21.03.2025 SNI 4 185 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 7158/2025 Date: 21.03.2025 SNI